2 Fehr Relationship - UCFV Research Review

Transcription

The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review volume 2: issue 2
9
Relationships: A Study of Memory, Change,
and Identity at a Place Called I:yem
Amanda Fehr
PhD candidate (History)
University of Saskatchewan
Abstract
The I:yem memorial, located four kilometres north of Yale British Columbia, represents the first time that
the name Stó:lō was publicly used in print by the people of the Fraser River Valley and Canyon to describe
themselves. This is significant as the nature of what it means to be, and who should be considered, Stó:lō
continues to be contested today. Incorporating interviews with Stó:lō Elders and Community members, this
study is an attempt to trace the themes of memory and changing understandings of place in an examination
of the many aspects of I:yem and the implications of this place for Stó:lō identities.
Introduction
Eayem Memorial 1938 AD, Erected by the Stalo Indians. In memory of many
hundreds of our forefathers buried here, this is one of our six ancient cemeteries
within our five mile Native fishing grounds which we inherited from our
ancestors. R.I.P.
— Text on 1938 I:yem Memorial1
The words on the I:yem memorial, located four kilometres north of Yale, British
Columbia in an area referred to as the “five mile canyon fishery,” represent the first time
that the term Stó:lō was publicly used in print by the Aboriginal people of the Fraser
River Valley and Canyon to describe themselves. This is significant as the nature of what
it means to be, and who should be considered, Stó:lō2 continues to be contested today.
1
The plaque has been missing from the I:yem memorial for several years. This text
was taken from an older picture of the memorial. The use of older spellings of “Eayem”
and “Stalo” are as inscribed on the memorial; throughout the rest of the paper these terms
appear in the form standardized in A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas unless quoting
directly from an earlier source. Picture of the I:yem memorial courtesy of Stó:lō Nation
Archives (SNA).
2
As ethnohistorian Keith Thor Carlson has noted, the term Stó:lō, meaning either
“river” or “people of the river,” “sits better with some contemporary Aboriginal political
and cultural leaders than others.” Most scholars agree that Stó:lō refers to a group of
indigenous people of the Lower Fraser watershed in Southwestern British Columbia,
living in more than two dozen Bands or First Nations. They share a similar culture, the
Halq’emélem language, and social affiliations, while issues of political unity remain
contested. In these political debates, some groups do not consider themselves to be Stó:lō,
especially those whose territory is along the fringes of what is claimed as Stó:lō territory.
The most notable of these disputes is between the Yale First Nation, whose territory is
closest to the Fraser Canyon, on the one side and the Stó:lō Nation and Tribal Council on
10
Ideas of both change and continuity in Stó:lō relationships with, and understandings of,
the Fraser Canyon are evident in this monument in the shape of a Christian cross with a
bronze plaque that blends aspects of Roman Catholicism with an articulation of a distinct
Stó:lō identity and assertion of rights.3 Ethnohistorian Keith Thor Carlson concludes his
recent article “Innovation, Tradition, Colonialism and Aboriginal Fishing Conflicts in the
Lower Fraser Canyon” with a brief discussion of the I:yem Memorial proposing that it
was principally created to honour the memory of the ancestors “whose remains had been
re-interred after developments associated with the building of Canada’s two
transcontinental railways”; it represented “a bold assertion of shared Stó:lō collective
identity and a broad communal title to the canyon fishery”; and it “signified a
recognition that the principal threat to Aboriginal fishing rights now came from nonnative interest, and implicitly that internal disputes should be handled internally.”4
Building upon Carlson’s assessment of the significance of the monument in 1938, what
follows is an exploration of some of the ways the Aboriginal people of the Fraser Canyon
and Valley understand I:yem and its memorial today. This discussion is primarily based
on oral interviews that I conducted during the joint University of Victoria/University of
Saskatchewan Ethnohistory Field School in June 2007, but also incorporates earlier
interviews from the Stó:lō Nation Archive’s Oral History Collection, court records,
political agreements, and newspaper articles.5
I:yem, meaning “strong” or “lucky place,”6 has changed in the seventy years since the
memorial was erected there. Changes to the site were recently noted by Stó:lō elder
Mabel Nichols who described the “white picket fence no longer white, two small grey
the other over territory and who should be considered Stó:lō. Issues of terminology are
further complicated by the use of the term in the names of contemporary political
organizations the Stó:lō Nation and the Stó:lō Tribal Council. These organizations were
formed in the 1970s and 1980s to negotiate land claims with the government. Therefore,
in this paper the term Stó:lō will be used in its most general sense to refer to cultural
similarity and shared history; specific political entities will be identified separately. See
Carlson, “Introduction,” 2; Schaepe, “Stó:lō Identity and the Cultural Landscape of S’olh
Téméxw,” 237.
3
Albert (Sonny) McHalsie believes that the memorial is the first time the term Stó:lō
was publicly displayed by the people themselves, with the exception of the Dream Book
of the Stó:lō Chief. See McHalsie interview. See also Carlson, “The Power of Place, The
Problem of Time.”
4
p. 168.
5
Despite efforts to meet with and interview members of the Yale First Nation, I was
unable to talk with anyone who officially represented that community. Although I was
able to have some informal conversations with community members, sent a letter of
introduction to Chief Robert Hope of Yale, and attempted to meet him in person, I was
informed that the Yale First Nation would not be able to consider my research request
until their current treaty negotiations are complete. Notwithstanding this, every effort has
been made to include the perspectives of members of the Yale First Nation using
alternative sources.
6
See Wilson Duff, The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley British Columbia,
30; Albert (Sonny) McHalsie, “Halq’emélem Place Names in Stó:lō Territory,” 142.
11
crosses with nothing written on them, and the larger one with the gaping spot where the
plaque had been.”7 A casual visitor might infer that the memorial has been forgotten; yet,
I:yem surfaces every so often in a process of repatriation and reinterpretation. Understandings of the memorial are often shaped by people’s visions for their future and an
ongoing assessment of the past.8 This results in the mobilization of various meanings for
the I:yem Memorial in different situations — some of which correspond while others
seem to contradict one another. These contemporary interpretations of the memorial
alternately emphasize either the need to re-establish and maintain personal connections to
canyon places, or the memorial’s potential role in resolving an ongoing conflict over both
territory and questions of identity between the Stó:lō Nation/Tribal Council on the one
side and the Yale First Nation on the other.
Figure 1: The I:yem Memorial circa 1940
Photographed by David J. Martin
(photo courtesy of Keith Thor Carlson)
Yet, political and personal relationships are never entirely separate, as is apparent in the
continuing role of the I:yem Memorial as a focal point of Stó:lō identity. Although I:yem
is no longer the strong or lucky place9 that it once was, it remains significant to many
7
Mabel Nichols, Personal Communication, October 6, 2007.
This is essentially the idea of historical consciousness, by which I mean, “individual
and collective understandings of the past, the cognitive and cultural factors that shape
those understandings, as well as the relations of historical understandings to those of the
present and future.” Sharon Macdonald and Katja Fausser, “Towards European Historical
Consciousness” in Approaches to European Historical Consciousness, ed. S. Macdonald
(Hamburg: Koerber Stiftung, 2000), p. 10, as quoted in Seixas, “Introduction,” 10.
9
The use of the term place is deliberate, building on scholarship on “place making”
such as Keith Basso’s Wisdom Sits in Places. The term “place” is dependent on the
existence of a relationship between people and the landscape and in this way is different
from the idea of “space.” Concepts of place are also typically linked with ideas of
displacement, and are important in identity formation, but are often only noted when
8
12
Aboriginal people. This testifies to the strength of the relationships people have
developed with I:yem, the lasting importance of the ancestors buried there, and the
centrality of the five mile Native fishery to people’s economic and social wellbeing.
Dealing with both personal and political as well as individual and community experiences
of place, this investigation incorporates a non-reductionist approach in its discussion of
these themes and their roles in shaping current understandings of the Fraser Canyon in
general and I:yem in particular. While emphasising that individual and community
understandings of place cannot be completely separated from one another, this analysis
begins with some individual interpretations of I:yem before turning to the collective
relationships that both the Stó:lō and Yale have with each other and the canyon places
they view as their own.
Figure 2: I:yem Memorial in 2008
Photo courtesy of Mabel Nichols
This discussion of I:yem draws upon several bodies of literature, including works specific
to the Coast Salish and the Fraser Canyon, place making, memory studies, and a variety
of anthropological and historical theorists. Beyond fitting into a rich regional and
thematic historiography this paper contributes to existing discussions on collective
affiliation, place making, and debates over issues of authority, while raising some new
questions and issues. Sonny McHalsie, Bruce Miller, Keith Thor Carlson, David Schaepe,
Wayne Suttles and Crisca Bierwert have noted the importance of place to the Coast
disrupted. “Colonial interventions radically disrupt the representation of place by
separating ‘space’ from ‘place’.” Furthermore, place is local, and where social
relationships are located. See “Place,” Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin,
eds. Post Colonial Studies, 177–79; Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places; Carlson, “The Power
of Place.”
13
Salish people, and the role of places in validating social and political status and
determining personal and collective identities.10
However, beyond the knowledge and information that is located in the landscape and
accessible to properly trained individuals, there is innate meaning in places where some
people can be seen to belong. In this way much of the discourse over the canyon fishery
has also been limited in that it is primarily about fish or economics rather than the
significance of fishing as a means to maintain connections to canyon places. Furthermore,
while several works acknowledge diversity within Coast Salish communities,11 little has
been done to specifically explore differences within and between these Aboriginal
groups. While only focusing on the fractures in and between communities is not
beneficial, being aware of them and the variety of interpretations of I:yem and its
memorial is still important. By focusing on the relationships between people and their
places and incorporating the theories of historical anthropologist Marshall Sahlins,
historical philosopher R. G. Collingwood, historical consciousness, and the idea of
multiple histories this discussion contributes to current conversations regarding Coast
Salish collective identity and opens doors to rethinking the importance of place.12
10
See Schaepe, “Stó:lō Identity”; Carlson, “Innovation, Tradition, Colonialism and
Aboriginal Fishing Conflicts in the Lower Fraser Canyon”; Carlson, “The Power of
Place”; Miller, The Problem of Justice; McHalsie, “Halq’emélem Place Names”; Suttles,
“The Persistence of Intervillage Ties”; McHalsie, “We Have to Take Care of Everything
that Belongs to Us”; Bierwert, Brushed by Cedar, Living by the River.
11
The roles of social networks, villages, and families has been highlighted in Suttles,
“The Persistence of Intervillage Ties”; Miller emphasizes a tendency for communities
themselves to perpetuate the idea of a harmonious past while deemphasizing social
conflict in the present in order to manage relationships with the outside world (The
Problem of Justice, 13); Carlson notes current tensions regarding fishing within Stó:lō
communities suggesting that there are two dimensions to them; conflicts between families
and those between the Yale First Nation and the Stó:lō (“Innovation, Tradition,
Colonialism and Aboriginal Fishing Conflicts in the Lower Fraser Canyon,” 145). In a
different context Carlson explains that there are similarities/commonalities among this
group of people in addition to differences, and chooses to focus on the former while
acknowledging the latter (“Introduction,” 1–2).
12
The general idea of focusing on relationships is a useful way to approach the
application of Marshall Sahlins’ concept of change and continuity, and his push for
scholarship to move away from dichotomies: Native versus newcomer, colonizer versus
colonized and other dichotomies such as private and public or political and personal.
More specifically this paper attempts to look at current Stó:lō relationships with I:yem,
and their interpretations of these relationships, or their historical consciousness, drawing
attention to connections between understandings of the past, present, and the future.
Employing the concept of histories, and recognizing that there is not a single “Native
voice” or even a single Stó:lō voice for that matter, this is an exploration of some of the
specific relationships that people of the Fraser Canyon and Valley have had with I:yem.
See Sahlins, With Apologies to Thucydides; Sahlins, “The Return of the Event, Again;
With Reflections on the Beginnings of the Great Fijian War of 1843 to 1855 between the
14
In addition to scholarship relating to the Stó:lō and Coast Salish, this analysis seeks to
contribute to a broader body of academic literature on place making,13 demonstrating how
places themselves may be inherently powerful rather than simply social constructs.
Exploring the reciprocal relationships between people and their places is necessary, as
individuals gain power and authority from belonging to certain places that they in turn
use to maintain connections within the present and for the future. For the Stó:lō it is the
relationship with the Fraser Canyon itself that is important. Whereas much of the recent
scholarship regarding the impact of colonialism on Aboriginal people has centred on the
ways their relationships with the landscape have been altered,14 this study moves beyond
how aspects of these relationships have changed to exploring how people have made
efforts to protect and regain them.
“In memory of…”
Issues of memory and forgetting became apparent in conversations I had with local Stó:lō
people in June 2007. In a variety of settings, different people regularly emphasized the
need to regain and preserve memories of the Fraser Canyon. In fact, since some Elders
did not know the memorial by name, sometimes a fair amount of explaining was
necessary before people understood which place I was interested in learning about. For
example, when I asked Tillie Gutierrez and Archie Charles about the I:yem Memorial,
both Stó:lō elders brought up a more recent monument of a salmon carved into a rock by
some Stó:lō people to memorialize 23-year-old murder victim Melanie Carpenter whose
body was found near I:yem in 1998. Their clear memory of the murdered girl was in stark
contrast to those Aboriginal ancestors forgotten in the cemetery at I:yem.15 Indeed,
Naxaxalhts’i (Sonny McHalsie),16 the Director of the Stó:lō Research and Resource
Management Centre at Stó:lō Nation, suggested that I:yem was already being forgotten in
1938, and that the memorial, and more significantly the plaque, were created to preserve
its memory and history.
Kingdoms of Bau and Rewa,” 45, 81–82; Collingwood, The Idea of History; Seixas,
Theorizing Historical Consciousness; Sider and Smith, “Introduction.”
13
To date, a significant amount of scholarship has centred on the various relationships
between memories and particular places. These studies demonstrate that places are
important sites of memory, that memory lives as long as it serves a social role, and that it
is possible for multiple and equally valid meanings to be attached to particular sites. See
for example Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places; Santos-Grenaro, “Writing History into the
Landscape”; Green and Green, “From Chronological to Spatio-Temporal Histories”;
Meyers, “Ways of Placemaking”; Turkel, The Archive of Place; Cruikshank, Do Glaciers
Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination.
14
See for example Harris, Making Native Space; Harmon “Coast Salish History”;
Laforet and York, Spuzzum.
15
“3,000 Mourn Slain BC Woman, Many at Carpenter Service Vow to Fight for
Tougher Laws,” The Globe and Mail, February 4, 1998, A1; Gutierrez interview; Charles
interview.
16
Sonny McHalsie is the great-grandson of one of the memorial’s creators, Dennis S.
Peters. McHalsie interview.
15
The community members that I spoke with frequently referred to the importance of the
memorial’s plaque. In the context of current inter-tribal political conflicts, it is the text
that is of particular significance. Grand Chief, Judge (and current Lieutenant Governor of
BC) Steven Point emphasized the political and economic significance of “rediscovering”
the memorial through people’s “own lens,” as it provided important evidence for the
Stó:lō in their ongoing disputes with the Yale First Nation over territory.17 Further
highlighting the importance of the text, self-described “fisher-lady” and Stó:lō elder, Rita
Pete,18 shared how upset she was when she discovered that the plaque had been stolen. It
was the plaque, she explained, that provided the memorial with significance:
[W]hoever we bring up there, they wonder what it means. So we let them read it
and then they go around reading the other ones. It [is] just important and now
everybody knows that it’s there and everybody wanted to know what it said.
Now there’s no plaque to read.19
Mrs. Pete’s comments demonstrate how, in many ways, the plaque has become the
memory of I:yem. Building on Sonny McHalsie’s suggestion that I:yem was already
being forgotten in 1938, and that the memorial (and more significantly the plaque) were
created to preserve its memory and history, these statements provide glimpses of how
people have begun to reclaim the memorial and with that to re-assert their rights and
claims to territory. In this way the memorial, while providing evidence of past
relationships with I:yem, serves as a reminder of the need for the Aboriginal people of the
Fraser Valley and Canyon to forge their own connections with I:yem today.
“This is one of our six ancient cemeteries”
According to Sonny McHalsie, the memorial’s creators “didn’t want us to forget about
the burial grounds.”20 It seems that those who continue to fish in the canyon, and still
have some connection or relationship with these places, have not forgotten about the
cemeteries in the five-mile Native fishery. In fact, Rita Pete, who has been fishing at
I:yem with her family for about sixty years, looks after the gravesite there.21 Her family
has been cleaning the cemetery at I:yem every year since they began fishing there, and
before that they cared for a graveyard across the river at Aseláw where they had fished.22
Thus, Rita Pete and her family have been continuing the practice of looking after the
ancestors buried in the canyon with the significant exception that they do not know who
any of the people are that are buried in the cemeteries. Rita Pete suggested that the
17
Point interview.
Mrs Pete was born in 1935 and lives at Skam reserve. Her fishing spot is located at
I:yem.
19
Pete interview.
20
McHalsie interview.
21
Rita Pete is still fishing at 73. It was Mrs. Pete’s mother, Lillian who had
connections to I:yem. See Pete interview.
22
Ibid.
18
16
ancestors were forgotten because they died so long ago, and that “nobody thinks of them
or anything.”23 Her connection with I:yem and the cemetery there is because it is next to
her fishing spot rather than through connections to specific ancestors who are buried
there.24 Although those buried at I:yem (and their stories) have primarily been forgotten
as individuals, they continue to be remembered as ancestors and treated with respect.
In addition to cleaning the cemetery, Rita Pete and her family have ritualistic burnings
there for the ancestors,25 through which they literally “feed the ancestors ‘cause they’ve
been forgotten.” She explained:
The first year I had it up there I had Roger Andrews up there and he was telling
me that there were old big boats and old wagons and even the Chinamen were
there and a lot of the old ancestors that came for the food. That was something
to hear. So I have it every year now. I was going to have it every other year but
the people I got doing the job said you should do it every year.26
Mrs. Pete’s explanation of the results of the first burning she had at I:yem highlight some
of the changes that occurred there, both in terms of how people relate to the space and
who they were. The reference to the Chinese (who may have died while working on the
railway in that area) suggests how with the creation of the railway and other events,
different groups of people became connected to the changing landscape. Still, the
presence of the old ancestors at the burning and at I:yem demonstrates that they continue
to be a part of that place rather than being simply an aspect of its history to be either
remembered or forgotten. The burning of food for the dead at I:yem is another way that
respect is shown to the dead and beyond that a means for people to re-connect with their
ancestors, their history, and their canyon places.
“Many hundreds of our forefathers”
This concept of having a connection to particular places and those who used them in the
past is often emphasised, as is the sense that it has been lost and needs to be regained.
The need for meaningful connection between the Stó:lō and the Fraser Canyon is outlined
by Sonny McHalsie:
When I talk about I:yem as a place name that’s an important place, it’s a fishing
place, it’s a fishing ground. But when I start talking about Dennis S. Peters27
23
Ibid.
However, due to the relationship between fishing spots and family connections it is
likely Mrs. Pete has some connection albeit in a distant way to those buried at I:yem.
25
At burnings, food is burned for the ancestors, and messages are received from them.
26
Ibid.
27
Stó:lō Political activist Dennis S. Peters was instrumental in erecting the I:yem
memorial with his brother-in-law Chief Isaac James of Ruby Creek. Dennis S. Peters was
Sonny McHalsie’s maternal great-grandfather. See McHalsie interview.
24
17
setting up the memorial I start talking about my grandfather fishing at that one
place and that’s my connection to the spot…That’s the really important part of
it. I think that is what’s missing today…I think that the only people that have a
really big connection up there is to the fishing rounds.28
Mr. McHalsie critiques the changing relationships between the Stó:lō and I:yem as it
transformed from a village site to a place where people returned to be buried to sites
where some people now fish.29 His statement captures the sense that through returning to
an idealized version of the past regaining relationships with particular places is possible.
There is a sense that since 1938, Stó:lō attachments to the Fraser Canyon have been
threatened and need to be re-asserted to preserve aspects of their relationships with
canyon places that they identify as most important.
“Within our five mile Native fishing grounds”
I:yem was a good place to catch salmon. According to Matilda (Tillie) Gutierrez whose
grandparents fished at I:yem, “the reason why they all loved going up there is because the
water is so rough and the fish is easy to catch because they used dip nets.”30 She went on
to explain, “I guess that’s what it really means, the memorial of that place there I:yem,
that fish was easy to get because the water is so rough.”31 To Mrs. Gutierrez the
significance of I:yem and the memorial connected to it is directly linked to her own
experiences there.
I:yem, and the other fishing sites above Yale were an important component of the
traditional fishing economy,32 yet as described by Mrs. Gutierrez the value of the fishery
went beyond economics. People’s memories of fishing in the canyon demonstrate
personal connections with places themselves and the people with whom they share them.
In this way the meaning of places are varied, relating directly to the experiences of those
who had relationships with them. To Tillie Gutierrez, I:yem is linked with memories of
spending time drying fish with her grandmother and pulling in a big spring salmon when
she was thirteen or fourteen years old (to the delight of people fishing across the river).
There is a sense of community created by the people from nearby fishing spots. I:yem
was where she met her husband Allan Gutierrez, who was also fishing there with his
grandparents, and a place where they fished together when they were first married.33 Mrs.
28
McHalsie, “We Have to Take Care,” 93.
This reveals the merit of R. G. Collingwood’s assertion that individuals who have
knowledge of what has changed can evaluate the change itself (or the past in their
present). Similar to Sahlins’ advocacy of a dialectic relationship between continuity and
change, Collingwood provides the important reminders that change is not necessarily an
improvement and that there is potential for resistance to change. See Collingwood, 326.
30
Gutierrez interview.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
29
18
Gutierrez explained “I loved that area so much and today I still do — that’s why these
place names stick right in my mind — all the heavenly places I grew up.”34 Memories are
intricately connected with personal meaning, experiences, and feelings. It is through these
experiences and relationships that Mrs. Gutierrez remembers and interprets I:yem. In this
way, the personal aspects of understandings of I:yem often result from familial and
interpersonal relationships that were maintained there. Mrs. Gutierrez’s love of I:yem is
partly derived from the place itself, but also from the time spent there with others.
I:yem is more than an “easy” place to catch fish, as fishing (and therefore I:yem) is
associated with other elements of Stó:lō culture. Tillie Gutierrez explains that it was at
I:yem that they35 caught the salmon for the sacred First Salmon Ceremony, by lowering
themselves down through a rocky arch that used to be there.36 Sonny McHalsie believes
that this is significant as through I:yem, and learning about that place, people have been
able to re-learn elements about the First Salmon Ceremony that were nearly lost.37 Along
these lines, aspects of Stó:lō culture and history literally exist within certain places and
the memories that they evoke. Memories and experiences are connected to places, and it
is through returning to those places that they can be regained.
Mrs. Gutierrez emphasized how her family’s fishing area at I:yem was destroyed when
the stone arch was blasted away “when they put those fish ladders in there.”38 The
construction of concrete fish ladders by the International Salmon Commission in response
to river blockages in the late 1950s showcases what are at times conflicting interests
between band control over reserves and family connections to particular fishing places.
Notably, in 1961, Yale Chief Peter Emery was advised that the International Salmon
Commission wished to use a portion of Yale Indian Reserve 22 to set up an air
compressor in connection with the proposed removal of twenty feet of two rocky
pinnacles — the arch previously referred to by Mrs. Gutierrez. Because I:yem is on
reserve land, the Commission required permission from the Yale Band to access the
territory. Although Chief Emery had originally “shown considerable concern over the
possibility of their excellent fishing pool at this point being ruined,”39 a Band Council
resolution was passed giving the Commission free access to do their work.40 As Tillie
Gutierrez and her family were not members of the Yale Band they were not consulted
regarding this matter, and as a result their fishing spot as they knew it was forever altered.
Mrs. Gutierrez explained that I:yem
34
Regina vs. Dorothy Vanderpeet, 17.
It is clear that here Mrs. Gutierrez is referring to her family at least.
36
Gutierrez interview; McHalsie interview; McHalsie, “We Have to Take Care,” 90.
37
McHalsie, “We Have to Take Care,” 90.
38
Matilda Gutierrez, as quoted in McHalsie “We have to Take Care,” 90.
39
LAC, RG10 vol. 13300, file 167/31-5-41-11, To Mr. Lloyd A. Royal, Director
International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, New Westminster, B.C., from J.S.
Dunn, Superintendent New Westminster Indian Agency, January 26, 1961, 153/31-5-3322.
40
LAC, RG10 vol. 13300, file 167/31-5-41-11, Band Council Resolution Yale Indian
Band, New Westminster Indian Agency, March 27, 1961.
35
19
was a good fishing place for my grandfather until the railway and the highway
came and they started blasting that place. Now there’s nobody who can do any
fishing there anymore, so actually the only thing we own is the site but no more
fishing ground; it’s all ruined.41
Specifically, this statement illustrates how Tillie Gutierrez viewed I:yem. To her, I:yem
was specifically her grandparents' fishing spot rather than a broader area including other
fishing sites — such as where Mrs. Pete continues to fish. More generally, she highlights
how people of her generation view canyon places primarily as fishing grounds. To Mrs.
Gutierrez, I:yem, as she knew it, was ruined by the destruction of their fishing spot.
Accordingly, testifying before a judge in a fisheries case, she said, “there used to be a
place there they called I:yem.”42
In stating that I:yem is no more, Mrs. Gutierrez raises interesting questions about place
and memory, and how changes to places affect peoples’ memories of, and connections to,
them. The I:yem that Tillie Gutierrez loved no longer exists. Her connections to that
place are now primarily through her memories. The memorial too serves as a reminder of
the way that I:yem was; however, rather than existing only in memory it exists in space
and time.
Relationships between the Stó:lō and their canyon fishing places have changed even
while people continue to fish in the spots of their ancestors. In the early 1950s, Wilson
Duff noted that the “time tested Aboriginal technology of dip nets and drying salmon in
the canyon, though still in limited use” were “rapidly giving way to gill nets and home
canning.”43 No doubt such transformations in human activities were partially due to
changes to the landscape itself, as well as government regulations and developments in
transportation and technology. Rita Pete spoke of how she had seen the fishing fluctuate
in the past sixty years and explained that “not that much of us dry fish these days.”44 She
attributed this to people passing away, and although she recognized that “some of the kids
go up there yet,” she noted that, “some don’t bother.”45 Although it might be more
efficient and economical to home can salmon, something is potentially lost when families
do not gather together over the course of several weeks to wind dry salmon. The story
telling, the sharing of memories, and the significance of I:yem are the sorts of things that
technological progress can obscure.
41
Regina v. Dorothy Vanderpeet, 17.
Gutierrez interview (b), 30. Emphasis added.
43
The Upper Stalo Indians of Fraser Valley British Columbia, 13. Some changes to
technology relate to the ownership of fishing stations and confusion or disputes over
certain places. Carlson has noted that where as a hundred years ago it was commonly
understood that Stó:lō fishing spots were their fishing rocks next to the eddies, today it is
the eddies that are considered to belong to particular fishers and their families. See
Carlson, “History Wars,” 78.
44
She explained that only fourteen families currently dry fish in the canyon. Pete
interview.
45
Ibid.
42
20
Individual fishing spots within the five mile fishery have, and continue to be, contested.
Even the fishing site at I:yem used by memorial creator Dennis S. Peters was disputed.46
Today Mrs. Pete fishes at that same spot. Although she explained how Dennis S. Peters’
son Oscar Peters gave the site to her mother Lillian (and that she had later taken it over),
she admitted that others had recently tried to claim the site. It seems that rather than open
conflicts, people question someone else’s right or authority to use a particular spot that
they regard themselves having a superior claim to. For example, Sonny McHalsie has
noted the controversy around his auntie Rita’s47 claims to the spot where his grandfather
fished, clarifying, “they [Mrs. Pete’s family] actually should be fishing across the river
where I fish and I should be fishing where Rita fishes because my grandfather [Robert
Peters] fished there.”
Even in this controversy, the way in which Mrs. Pete and her family use the spot is
significant, as McHalsie has noted “[the year I wanted to start fishing] she [Mrs. Pete]
was already fishing there. She already had her family there, you know the dry rack, cabin,
and she was quite comfortable.”48 Seen in this light, it is most important that the fishing
spot remains a Stó:lō place where someone with a claim, albeit from some people’s
perspectives not necessarily the best claim, continues to fish and dry in a proper way. It is
her earlier and ongoing use of the site that gives Mrs Pete authority to use the spot.
Belonging to I:yem
From the Stó:lō perspective, people are regarded as belonging to places as much as
places belong to people. Mrs Gutierrez explained that when some people49 tried to claim
the spot where her daughter continues to fish, “the spirit” protected her from being hurt
because her daughter belonged to that area — the ancestors were there before her.50 In
this regard, the memorial at I:yem, by drawing attention to the ancestors buried in the
Fraser Canyon, is a reminder of this connection between the Stó:lō and the canyon as
well as their corresponding rights to fish there. The idea that certain people belong to the
canyon emphasizes that for the Stó:lō meaning exists within these places and is not
simply ascribed to them.
While some Stó:lō people are seen as belonging to certain places and their relationships
with the Fraser Canyon can be viewed as protected, the places themselves have and
continue to be threatened and changed. It is difficult for an outsider like myself to
understand how Tillie Gutierrez’s daughter’s relationship with her canyon fishing place
was preserved because she belonged to that place while I:yem itself (as Mrs. Gutierrez
knew it) was destroyed by cement fish ladders in the early 1960s. Such changes are
further evident in the vandalism that has occurred in the cemetery at I:yem that included
46
See Mrs. Vincent Peters, Marion Smith Fieldnotes, MS 268:4 (15) and 268: 4 (9).
Mrs. Pete is McHalsie’s mother’s second cousin. See “We Have to Take Care,” 95.
48
Ibid.
49
Mrs. Gutierrez did not specify whom.
50
Gutierrez interview.
47
21
the theft of the memorial’s plaque. Yet, while canyon places change the meaning that is
inherent in them remains, as does the need for certain people and families to continue to
return to them. In attempting to reconcile ideas of belonging with obvious changes to
canyon places, it is suggested here that it is the relationship with the canyon itself that the
Stó:lō view as the most important — demonstrating continuity in the midst of change.
Statements of belonging to the Fraser Canyon go beyond articulating an attachment there
and can be seen as providing authority to particular claims to these places. It is because
individuals and their families belong to their canyon places that they argue their claims
are superior to those of others. By articulating this relationship, they actively maintain
connections with their canyon places. Nonetheless, competing claims over these places
remain, as do competing authorities. While places may own certain people and grant
authority to their claims, legally and politically these same places are under the control of
groups to which these individuals may not belong. This is most evident in the Yale
Band's role in acceding to the creation of the fish ladders that destroyed Mrs. Gutierrez’s
family’s fishing spot. Even though Mrs. Gutierrez’s family belonged to I:yem, as a Yale
Indian Reserve it was under the authority of the Yale Indian Band, to which she did not
belong.
Authority derived from both belonging to particular places as well as that from legal and
political means continues to be invoked in negotiating Aboriginal relationships with
canyon places. Both the Yale and Stó:lō see themselves as belonging to the Fraser
Canyon and are actively engaged in protecting their connections to certain places.
These themes of belonging and authority will be further explored as the focus of this
analysis turns to the communal aspects of the relationships of the Yale and Stó:lō with
I:yem and with each other, as well as their understandings of these relationships.
Re-discovering I:yem: I:yem as a Contested Place
The memorial at I:yem continues to be significant today, as it is currently associated with
a larger dispute between the Yale First Nation on the one hand and the Stó:lō Nation and
Tribal Council on the other over fishing rights in the canyon. Since 1938 the legal climate
for Aboriginal rights has changed, creating opportunities for land claims and the
formation of Aboriginal political organizations to pursue them — including the different
incarnations of the Stó:lō Nation, the Stó:lō Tribal Council, the Yale Band, and the Yale
First Nation.51 As Carlson explains, “occasionally colonialism creates a context where
51
Paul Tennant, Aboriginal People and Politics, 122. Stó:lō bands participated in the
Chilliwack Area Council that began when the federal government transferred jurisdiction
over their social assistance programme to the council in 1974. Significantly, in 1975 the
“self-proclaimed Stó:lō Tribes of the Lower Fraser Watershed drafted and adopted the
Stó:lō declaration,” which was essentially “a statement of Aboriginal title and rights to all
land and resources within their collective tribal territory.” By the early 1980s the political
tribal council Stó:lō Nation was formed. The Yale Band was a member of this tribal
22
Indigenous interests clash with one another, and within which both sides invoke history
to justify innovative means to traditional ends.”52 Thus, the dispute between the Stó:lō
and the Yale First Nation is intertwined with their relationships with the federal and
provincial governments and the history of colonial changes to the Fraser Canyon.
It is in such a context that the memorial has been “re-discovered,” taking on a new
political and economic significance. According to Steven Point,
[The I:yem memorial] became politically significant at a time when [in the late
1980s and early 1990s] the Stó:lō were being asked to get a licence to fish up
there [in the Fraser Canyon] from the Yale Band.53 And the Yale Band was
trying to get control of the fishery there and our chief was going “why should
we get a licence from you when this is our fishery?” There was internal conflict
there, and so the memorial became important just to show that the Stó:lō have
been up there fishing for a millennium, for a long, long time.54
The potential for the memorial to help the Stó:lō regain important fishing grounds makes
it potentially significant for the majority of Stó:lō people and potentially harmful to
members of the Yale First Nation. Similarly, each group has distinct understandings of
the canyon fishery.
The Stó:lō Nation/Stó:lō Tribal Council on the one side and the Yale First Nation on the
other have been in court twice since 1992 over who should control access to and regulate
the canyon fishery — and by implication who should be considered Stó:lō.55 The Stó:lō
council, until it withdrew its membership by a Band Council Resolution on June 6, 1983.
This was not the only conflict within Stó:lō Nation, and in 1985 its member bands split to
form two tribal councils — the Stó:lō Nation Canada and the Stó:lō Tribal Council. It is
significant that following this split both political entities still considered themselves to be
Stó:lō and would unite in the pursuit of common causes and goals. These organizations
amalgamated in 1999 before fracturing again in 2005/2006. See Miller, The Problem of
Justice, 125; Schaepe, “Stó:lō Identity,” 235; Affidavit of Robert Hope, Chief Robert
Hope v. Lower Fraser Fishing Authority and others, 2; “Yale First Nation Paid
Advertisement,” Chilliwack Progress, July 3, 1999.
52
“Innovation,” 145.
53
The people from Yale refer to themselves as the Yale First Nation because they
view themselves as separate from the Stó:lō. The use of the term Yale Band here
promotes the view that they remain a Stó:lō community.
54
Point interview.
55
This public conflict was sparked by the efforts of the downriver Stó:lō communities
to negotiate an Aboriginal Fishing Strategy (AFS) and pilot sales agreements with the
Department of Oceans and Fisheries. See Chief Robert Hope vs. Lower Fraser Fishing
Authority and others, Reasons for Judgment of Mr. Justice K. C. MacKenzie, (BC
Supreme Court Vancouver Registry, 17 July 1992); Yale First Nation v. Her Majesty the
Queen In Right of Canada et al., Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice
Dorgan, (BC Supreme Court Victoria Registry, May 22, 2001), online, Reasons for
Judgments Database, http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb -txt/sc/01/07/2001bcsc0746.htm.
23
groups emphasize that access to the canyon fishery was and is based upon customary
family rights to particular fishing stations and that Yale First Nation is indeed a Stó:lō
band. The Yale have argued that their chief and council has the right to control access to
the canyon fishery and that members of other First Nations, including the Stó:lō , require
their permission to use sites in the “Yale fishery.”56
As the Yale First Nation moves through the treaty process the implications for future
relationships with the canyon fishery become apparent. Although the Yale First Nation
reached an Agreement in Principle57 on March 6, 2006 with the federal and provincial
governments, they continue to have “overlapping claims in the Fraser Valley” with the
Stó:lō.58 Part of the “Yale Agreement in Principle” outlines that their government would
determine who has rights to harvest fish in their territory under the final agreement. In
addition to the allocation of these resources, the Yale First Nation would become
responsible for setting out methods, timing, and location of fish harvesting, with the
potential for commercial opportunities.59 Beyond rights and access to the canyon fishery,
this agreement would officially solidify the position of I:yem (as part of Yale Indian
Reserve 22) as an area under the control of the Yale First Nation rather than the Stó:lō
collectively. Such possibilities worry the Stó:lō downriver, as they threaten their access to
the territory as well as the identity of places they view as historically Stó:lō . As Steven
Point notes, “once they have a constitutional right to do that, it’s pretty tough to
change.”60
These court cases and treaty negotiations contribute to how people are able to relate to the
Fraser Canyon and demonstrate the role of law in shaping understandings of I:yem and its
memorial. These decisions and negotiations continue to define Native places, and in some
ways can be seen as a continuation of the mapping and remapping of Indian Reservations
in BC that began in the mid-nineteenth century.61 Similarly, current negotiations affect
how people relate to places and one another — especially in their assertions over to
whom the canyon belongs and what types of rights Aboriginal people have to certain
places. Recent court cases and land claims emphasize that the Fraser Canyon is partially a
legal space that continues to be defined by processes that are never entirely within
Aboriginal control. In this way, the current conflict raises broader issues about the role of
56
See Chief Robert Hope, vs. Lower Fraser Fishing Authority and others, Reasons for
Judgment of Mr. Justice K. C. MacKenzie, 2; See also Yale Indian Band vs. Aitchelitz
Indian Band et al., Reasons for Order of Prothonotary John A Hargrave, (Federal Court
Vancouver B.C., 24 June 1998), file # T-776-98, online, Federal Court Decisions Web
Site, p. 3. http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/1998/t-776-98_4083/t-776-98.html
57
The Agreement in Principle is the fourth step in the six-step treaty process and is to
reflect the guiding principles in negotiations between BC, Canada and the First Nation.
58
BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Yale First Nation
Agreement in Principal Brochure, 3.
59
Yale First Nation Treaty Negotiations Agreement in Principle, pp. 47, 50.
60
Point interview.
61
Cole Harris has noted the legal realities of the “arbitrary boundaries identified on
the reserve maps.” (Making Native Space, 271.)
24
courts and the treaty process in determining who can form relations to particular places,
and how they are able to do so.
The conflicts between the Yale First Nation and the Stó:lō Nation/Tribal Council relate
not only to who should have rights to fish in the Fraser Canyon, but to who should be
considered Stó:lō. As such, they are also about assertions of authority. Individuals’
understandings of places are often conceptualized in comparison with others. Extant
statements by Robert Hope and Steven Point are similar in how they describe their own
communities compared to those of the other. Carlson has noted that in contemporary
Indigenous conflicts, “a group will often assert that its claim to a particular resource is
superior to another’s because it is more ‘traditional’.”62
In this conflict between the Stó:lō and the Yale, in addition to invocations of tradition and
history, the Aboriginal people of the Fraser Canyon and Valley tend to undermine their
opponent’s claims by dichotomizing the economic motives of the two sides. Both sides
speak of what the other stands to gain from controlling the canyon and what their own
group stands to lose. Some members of the Stó:lō First Nation have suggested that the
Yale decided “they weren’t Stó:lō anymore,” when it became politically and
economically prudent for them to do so.63 Yet, when referring to their own claim, these
Stó:lō spokespersons typically focus on the personal aspects of their connections to
canyon places.64 Chief Robert Hope of Yale provides a counter argument asserting that
the people at Yale were only included in the Stó:lō group by the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development as an “administrative convenience.”65 Ironically,
Steven Point explained the government’s placement of the canyon fishing reserves under
the authority of the Yale Band was also a matter of “administrative convenience.”66
62
Carlson, “Toward an Indigenous Historiography,” 139.
According to Steven Point the fight between the Stó:lō and the people at Yale began
when selling fish became legal. The Yale did not want the Stó:lō Nation to be controlling
what they viewed as their industry, “that’s why they aren’t Stó:lō.” Summary from Point
interview.
64
For example, Ken Malloway, a Stó:lō commercial fisherman, emphasized that the
“dispute is not just about ‘property,’ in the European sense. It is about family, and
personal identity; about the need for cultural survival. We are borrowing the land and the
resources from the children who are yet unborn.” See Ken Malloway, as quoted in Mark
Falkenberg, “Family Feud: Stó:lō Say Fight Over Fishing Rights with Yale Band Comes
Down to Respect for Traditional Fishing Patterns,” Chilliwack Progress, April 17, 1998,
p. 9.
65
The Chilliwack Progress, March 17, 2006, as quoted in Fraser Valley Treaty
Advisory Committee Local Media Excerpts to March 31st, 2006, online,
http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/37719ADD-6E99-4634-BD00B53E396C7D86/928/LocalMediaReporttoMarch3106.pdf.
66
Point interview. Issues of government mistakes in naming reserves are not new, as
they were raised in the 1950s by Mr. and Mrs. Lorenzetto from Hope who explained to
Wilson Duff that Xε’tεt was put under the Yale band by mistake. The Lorenzettos
explained that the “Commissioner going by didn’t land there, and Liyik travelling with
him, said he’d take care of their other places out of his kindness. Commissioner said he’d
63
25
Statements emphasizing the need for individuals and groups to have meaningful
relationships with their places while denying others that same connection reveal that both
the Stó:lō and Yale draw upon their personal connections with these places to add
authority to their own claims.
While both sides emphasize their personal connections to canyon places and the role of
these connections in their group identities, the clear economic benefits of the canyon
fishery seem (to an outsider’s eyes) glaring and contradictory. As such, they raise
questions about my own assumptions in interpreting information that has been shared
with me. Identities and cultures are inherently political and typically promote the interests
of their members. Yet, whereas my own biases accept economic self-interest in the past
from people vying for control over valuable canyon resources, the present claims that
stand to benefit financially one Aboriginal group over another seem less palatable.
Significantly the relationships of the Stó:lō and the Yale to their canyon places have been
articulated and mobilized primarily in the more adversarial settings of the court room,
treaty table, local media, and other political forums. This public dispute has been
characterized by outsiders as Aboriginal groups “vying for control of the lucrative
Canyon fishery in the courts and at the treaty table,”67 or alternatively as only a “rivalry
skirmish and contest between Indian bands over where they might catch their given
allocation of salmon.”68
Such normative assessments tend to rationalize the conflict. They are also reductionist —
narrowing the conflict to what people stand to gain economically.69 It is important to
avoid simple answers derived from outside cultural perspectives and to take the economic
aspects of these relationships with place seriously. Consequently I must reconsider the
testimony of those individuals and groups whose self-interest is easiest to critique, as well
as the accounts of those, such as Mrs. Gutierrez, whose claims of personal connections
are easy to accept uncritically. Just as Aboriginal commercial fishers may have more
complex personal relationships with their fishing places, those who have emphasized the
inherent meaning of the places may also economically benefit from the fish that they and
their families catch there. While acknowledging the validity of economical aspects of
relationship to places, questioning how representative an individual’s testimony is of the
Stó:lō or the Yale, their family, and their own personal perspective is necessary. This
come back, but didn’t so χ∂t∂t stayed with Yale band, not foreseeing trouble at present.”
See Mr. and Mrs. Lorenzetto, Duff, Unpublished Fieldnotes, Notebook #7.
67
Robert Freemen, “Bands Feud Over Canyon Cleaning,” Chilliwack Progress, May
18, 1999.
68
Yale Indian Band v. Aitchelitz Indian Band et al., Reasons for Order of Prothonotary
John A. Hargrave, 1998, 7.
69
There is also a tendency for some scholars to be critical of Aboriginal groups that
seem to prioritize more local band-based identities in the pursuit of economic advantages.
For example, lawyer and historian Alexandra Harmon has explained “people of Native
ancestry have related their histories in order to show that they meet government
definitions of Indian, tribe or band and are therefore entitled to particular resources.”
(“Coast Salish History,” 46–48). See also Miller, Tennant, and Harris.
26
conflict, that has at times been violent,70 is not, however, simply about fish. It is also, and
I argue more fundamentally, about maintaining important relationships to particular
places, even when fishing elsewhere could be more convenient and just as profitable,
given changes in technology. In this way, Aboriginal relationships with the Fraser
Canyon are not only about fish or identities, but also about the continued meaning of the
canyon itself, and the need of both the Yale and Stó:lō to maintain their connections with
those places.
Personal Aspects of I:yem
Even the broader political conflict cannot be separated from the personal aspects of place.
This is especially evident in statements made by respected Yale elder Lawrence Hope
regarding the canyon fishery — statements that are inherently political, yet fundamentally
personal.71 Like Tillie Gutierrez, Sonny McHalsie, and Rita Pete, Mr. Hope emphasizes
his own personal connections with and experiences in the Fraser Canyon. He established
his privileged voice and authority by asserting, “I think I am the only one that grew up in
the canyon that is left. I am the only one that truly lived in the canyon, in the fishing
ground that saw things.”72 It is these experiences that legitimize his claims and add to his
own status, even though he clearly is not the only person who grew up in the canyon.
Furthermore, his childhood experiences of spending time in the canyon with his family
inform his current understandings of these places.
It is interesting to explore Lawrence Hope’s description of the Stó:lō asking permission
of the Chief at Yale to fish in the canyon. As Mr. Hope explains, in the past a person
would not say “I want to come here to fish.”73 Rather, he reminisces that:
When I was a young boy, I remember that before anyone went fishing they
always dropped in to say hello and pay their respects to my grandfather.74 This
was a customary way of asking permission to fish in our territory. The arrival of
guests into our territory for purposes of fishing was a cause of celebration, they
70
For example, Ken Malloway has referred to violent confrontations between the Yale
and Stó:lō over the fishery. He has also emphasized that, “our people [the Stó:lō] would
die for those fishing spots, literally, our people would die for those fishing spots.”
(Malloway interview, 10.)
71
Lawrence Hope was born in the 1920s at Seabird Island. Although his grandfather
George Hope had moved the family to Seabird from Yale to farm, the family seasonally
returned to the canyon to fish. Lawrence Hope’s mother, Lena (nee Charlie) later took
over the farm. Mr. Hope explained that the farm “wasn’t much of a success, so we more
or less moved to Yale all the summer months. . .” Lawrence Hope is the father of Chief
Robert Hope. (Hope interview, 4.)
72
Ibid., 13.
73
Affidavit of Lawrence Hope, Yale Indian Band vs. Aitchelitz Indian Band et al.,
section [30].
74
Mr. Hope is referring to his mother’s stepfather, who was Chief Jimmie Charlie.
Jimmie Charlie was a brother-in-law to Dennis S. Peters and Isaac James.
27
would stay over night with the chief before going to the river and would visit us
again on their departure. This happened on a yearly basis.75
Lawrence Hope’s understandings of the canyon are shaped by his relationships with his
family, especially his grandfather, and also by his interactions with those who fished
there at the time. Although this statement outlines proper protocols between insiders and
outsiders (suggesting that the territory belongs to those at Yale), it is essentially about
relationships between people and the places they share. Mr. Hope’s sentiment that such
connections have been lost is evident in the simple statement, “but those days are
gone.”76 Lawrence Hope’s conceptions of the Fraser Canyon shaped by his relationships
with those that he experienced it with are similar to Mrs. Gutierrez’s memories of the
I:yem of her childhood that cease to exist in the present. Furthermore, his interpretation
complements that of Sonny McHalsie, as both stress a sense of loss, changes, and need to
regain connections with places and between the people who share them. While
articulating seemingly different political perspectives, Mr. Hope and Mr. McHalsie share
concerns over their perspective communities’ lost connections to the Fraser Canyon and
seek to re-assert their attachments there.
I:yem as a Yale Place
Building on Mr. Hope’s personal understandings of the Fraser Canyon, I will now
explore how the broader community at Yale relates to, and interprets, this place. In
attempting to look at I:yem as a Yale place, it is necessary to take seriously and
historicize the Yale’s claim of not being Stó:lō. This exploration of the heretoforeunexamined experiences of those who stayed in the Fraser Canyon rather than migrating
downriver in the late nineteenth century77 suggests how they responded to changes to
their places and came to view themselves as a distinct group of Aboriginal people of both
Stó:lō and Nlaka’pamux heritage.78 Newspaper articles, public statements, and earlier
oral interviews with members of the Yale First Nation reveal that the Yale’s
interpretation of their history is fundamentally shaped by particular familial connections
and experiences. Over time, the families at Yale have changed and by 1952, there were
75
Affidavit of Lawrence Hope, Chief Robert Hope et al. vs. The Lower Fraser Fishing
Authority and others, (Vancouver registry, July 1992) file # c92-4333, p. 5; For similar
statements see also “New Head of Fisheries Meets Canyon Band,” The Hope Standard,
July 13, 2000, p. 13; Affidavit of Lawrence Hope, Yale Indian Band vs. Aitchelitz Indian
Band et al., section [30].
75
Affidavit of Lawrence Hope, Yale Indian Band vs. Aitchelitz Indian Band et al.,
section [33].
76
“New Head of Fisheries Meets Canyon Band.”
77
Carlson has extensively explored the role of large migrations from the Fraser
Canyon in the formation and consolidation of a collective Stó:lō identity among those
who moved to more arable lands further down river. See “The Power of Place”; “Toward
an Indigenous Historiography”; “Stó:lō Migrations and Shifting Identities.”
78
See Hope interview; Yale First Nation Treaty Negotiations Agreement in Principle.
28
only three family groups that were a part of the Yale Band.79 The majority of men who
stayed in the canyon married upriver Nlaka'pamux women and their “families negotiated
membership in both ‘communities’.”80 Anthropologist Andrea Laforet has noted that in
the 1970s, the Aboriginal people at Yale were of both Upper Stó:lō and Nlaka'pamux
descent.81 As familial connections and rights to certain places can be seen to centre a
person’s own spatial orientation, changes to particular families over time would affect
their members’ understandings of their places.
Such an upriver focus of the leaders and major families at Yale, which to an extent was
natural for a border community, would have differed from how those who moved down
river for agricultural opportunities related to the territory.82 Over time identities shifted
and ethnogenesis potentially occurred as the descendants of the Emerys, Charlies, and
Hopes learned the Nlaka'pamux language and associated histories of their grandparents.83
This is not to say, as has been claimed in court, that the Stó:lō do not have ancestral links
to the Fraser Canyon and family rights to its fishery. Evidence from reserve commissions,
oral history and the memorial itself notes that those who moved down river considered
themselves to have retained their canyon fishing rights. Nevertheless, it is important to
recognize that the disputes between the Yale and the Stó:lō are linked to their changing
relationships with particular places, and that the formation and articulation of new
identities can be seen as legitimate responses to such changes.84
79
LAC, RG10 vol. 7128, file 987/3-5, pt. 2, Letter to W. S. Arneil, Indian
Commissioner for BC, from J. C. Letcher, Superintendent New Westsminster Agency,
BC, January 28, 1952, Fraser District — Vancouver and New Westminster Agency —
Elections of Chiefs and Councilors for the Various Bands in the Ares.
80
Andrea Laforet and Annie York, Spuzzum, 137. Notably the families of Patrick
Charlie and Maggie Emery negotiated memberships in Spuzzum and Yale. The Hope
family currently prominent at Yale also has links to both communities. See Bjerky, “First
Peoples of Yale and Spuzzum.”
81
“Folk History in a Small Canadian Community,” 33.
82
As early as 1945, Fred Ewen explained to one of Marian Smith’s students that the
Talti’t or Yale People were a joining of the Halq’emélem and “Thompson people in the
Stalo.” See Ewen and Smith Fieldnotes, 268:2:1 (13).
83
The use of language and history in families of both Nlaka'pamux and Stó:lō heritage
would likely influence understandings of place. There is a link between language and the
names of particular places, and the knowledge of those places that can be derived from
their names. In this way the prominence of the Nlaka'pamux language in these families is
directly tied to understandings of places and their history. See, for example, Charlie
interview, 22; Hope interview, 6–7.
84
This discussion fits into a body of literature that rightly describes the Coast Salish as
a “fluid, supratribal society.” However, some scholars seem to privilege Aboriginal
identities and affiliations that grow to be more expansive over those that become
narrower. Arguably, current interpretations of the Yale’s identity and understandings of
place, while narrower than those of the Stó:lō, still fit into a context of fluidity and flux
that involves both expansions and contractions. See Harmon, 47–48; See also Suttles;
Miller; Carlson, “Toward an Indigenous Historiography.”
29
This exploration of Yale understandings of the canyon sheds light on some of their
differences with the Stó:lō, especially the contested claim that the Stó:lō require the Yale
Chief’s permission to fish in the canyon. According to tribal historian Bob Joe, who in
1962 shared his memories of the creation of the I:yem Memorial with amateur
ethnographer Oliver Wells, the memorial asserted the right of all of the Stó:lō people to
fish in the five mile fishery above Yale. In contrast, he noted the different relationship
that the Nlaka'pamux had with the area, as they needed to get permission before fishing
there.85 This explanation offers a possible reason as to why the current Chief and Council
of the Yale Band, individuals with Nlaka'pamux heritage, believe that other groups, such
as the Stó:lō , need permission to fish in the canyon. This is reflective of how their
ancestors and families understood outsiders to relate to the fishery.
I:yem beyond the Courtroom
It is important not to overemphasize the contest over being Stó:lō , and thereby limit
present-day understandings of place to those terms. Carlson provides an important
reminder that Native rights litigation is a “theatre in which identity and affiliation tend to
be drawn in stark, often binary terms: plaintiffs and defendants, Indians and whites,
supporters and opponents. . .”86 Accordingly, in the abovementioned court cases and
treaty negotiations a variety of understandings of the Fraser Canyon are often reduced to
two perspectives — Yale versus Stó:lō. While these perspectives remain significant and
often relate to individuals’ understandings of the Fraser Canyon, they do not fully capture
the complexity of the many relationships that the Aboriginal people of the Fraser Valley
and Canyon had and continue to have with the canyon and I:yem. In addition to
challenging each other, the perspectives of the Yale and Stó:lō are also interconnected,
drawing on a common history, albeit at times different aspects and interpretations. In
their relationships to place, members of both groups emphasize the role of government
regulations and other colonial changes. They attempt to respond to perceived threats to
their relationships and recreate personal attachments with the canyon.
Although there is a difference between such a general political significance, and the
personal connections that Tillie Gutierrez, Rita Pete, Lawrence Hope, and Sonny
McHalsie emphasized, these differing views (while not necessarily informed by one
another) cannot be completely separated. Tillie Gutierrez, Rita Pete, and Archie Charles
had little to say about the political conflict between the Yale First Nation and the Stó:lō,
and Archie Charles, who fishes for food and not commercial sale, reported never having
problems with the Yale Band.87 Their connections to I:yem and the fishery were personal.
To Tillie Gutierrez, I:yem was her grandparents’ fishing spot. To Rita Pete I:yem is
where her own fishing spot and dry rack are located as well as the graveyard that she is
responsible for looking after. Then again, even those who emphasized more personal
85
Bob Joe, “Bob Joe at Tzeachten February 8, 1962” in Oliver Wells Interview
Collection (1961–1968), transcript, SNA, 103.
86
Carlson, “Innovation,” 145.
87
Charles interview.
30
relationships with I:yem have also been involved in the more political aspects of things
and vice versa. Mrs. Gutierrez testified in the Vanderpeet case that eventually went to the
Supreme Court of Canada regarding Aboriginal rights to sell fish commercially.88
Archie Charles, who was the chief of Seabird Island for many years and served as one of
the grand chiefs of the Stó:lō, was personally named in the court cases between the Yale
and the Stó:lō over fishing in the Fraser Canyon. Even Mrs. Pete referred to some trouble
with the Yale First Nation, noting that although her fishing spot at I:yem is not on reserve
land, members of the Yale Band “came there measuring it.”89 In contrast, Steven Point,
whose interpretation of the I:yem Memorial was the most overtly political, conducted the
sacred burning ceremony at I:yem for Mrs. Pete. Most notably Lawrence Hope’s
testimony and affidavit while providing the foundation for the Yale First Nation’s claim,
is especially personal. Finally, even though Sonny McHalsie recognizes the political
significance of the memorial and its implications for Stó:lō identity and history, has
conducted research for claims, and testified in court, I:yem is where his ancestors lived,
fished, and where his great-grandfather built a memorial — by extension, this is a place
where he belongs.
Conclusion
When asked about the current significance of I:yem to the Stó:lō people, Mr. McHalsie
explained that he was “not sure if to many people think about it, but that’s something that
is going to come back eventually. You know, I really feel that we need more of an
attachment to the area up there.”90 The I:yem memorial no longer provides that primary
attachment. Rather than preserving a physical connection for the Stó:lō people to their
canyon places, the memorial is now largely an example of a past relationship and can be
used as evidence in attempts by the Stó:lō to forge and maintain relationships with these
canyon places in their present and for the future. In this way the meaning of the memorial
— the need to establish, maintain, and define relationships with the canyon — remains
while the memorial itself is often forgotten. I:yem is an important place for those who
have connections to it and continue to fish there with their families. Those who have
preserved their own connections to I:yem remain positive that their communities will
regain their lost attachments to the place. Some of these visions for the future involve the
seemingly forgotten memorial. For example, Mrs. Pete has explained that her son Richard
wants to get another plaque for the monument.91 Others like Mr. McHalsie continue to
search for alternative means to assert their connections to the canyon for future
88
Mrs. Gutierrez provided testimony in 1989. The Stó:lō supported Dorothy
Vanderpeet and brought the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Although the
Supreme Court did not find in favour of Mrs. Vanderpeet in 1996, the case resulted in the
court providing criteria for establishing Aboriginal rights.
89
Pete interview.
90
McHalsie interview.
91
Pete interview.
31
generations. Regardless of what form these assertions take, what remains constant is the
need of the Stó:lō and the Yale to continually make them.
Ideas of memory and connections to certain landscapes are intricately related to
individual and group identities. I:yem is not only a place that is politically significant for
the Stó:lō in their disputes with the Yale First Nation, it is also personally meaningful to
many of the people who were interviewed for this project. It is this need for meaningful
relationships with places that seems to link the personal with the political, the tangible
and the intangible, and relationships between the dead, the living, and those yet unborn
— demonstrating continuity in a place that has, and will continue, to change. I:yem is a
Stó:lō place and a Yale place, but beyond that it is experienced and interpreted by
particular individuals and families. Throughout this paper I have attempted to unveil the
importance of place making and relationships in the way identities are constructed by
exploring how a few Aboriginal people of the Fraser Canyon and Valley continue to
understand the canyon in general and I:yem in particular and what aspects of those places
they choose to preserve in their own present. The ways in which Sonny McHalsie, Tillie
Gutierrez, Archie Charles, Rita Pete, Steven Point, and Lawrence Hope spoke of I:yem
and the canyon demonstrate the importance of connections to places, memory, belonging,
authority, ancestors, and fishing for both personal and political reasons. Meaning is never
simply something that is ascribed to places — it also exists within them. This is
especially true at I:yem, where people’s ancestors are located and where they themselves
belong. It is through the process of returning to these places that aspects of memory and
identity are regained and new connections with the landscape created. Fundamentally, it
is the Aboriginal people of the Fraser Canyon and Valley that have and will continue to
set the parameters of what aspects of the canyon can change and what must be preserved,
ultimately demonstrating the centrality of their many relationships with this place.
Note: Since this paper was accepted for publication, tensions have increased between the
Stó:lō and Yale First Nations. In October 2008, some members of the Yale First Nation
used a backhoe to push the I:yem Memorial into the Fraser Canyon. A group of Stó:lō
people have placed a new stone plaque (with the same inscription as the 1938 original)
into the ground where the memorial once stood. Currently, the Stó:lō want mischief
charges laid against the Yale, and the Yale want trespassing charges laid against the
Stó:lō.92 While these recent events are in some ways unexpected, they fit with the
arguments and conclusions that this paper has made about the continuing need for both
the Stó:lō and the Yale to maintain and protect particular relationships with I:yem and the
Fraser Canyon.
92
Robert Freeman, “Yale cemetery conflict — ‘This is spiritual now’,” Chilliwack
Progress, November 10, 2008; Robert Matas, “Taking it to their graves: Two native
bands at odds over land, fisheries, and burial ground of their ancestors,” Globe and Mail,
November 5, 2008.
32
Bibliography
Museums and Archives Abbreviations
British Columbia Archives (Victoria, British Columbia) BCA
Library and Archives Canada (Ottawa, Ontario) LAC
Stó:lō Nation Archives (Chilliwack, British Columbia) SNA
Oral Interviews and Unpublished Ethnographic Collections
Charles, Archie. Interview by Amanda Fehr, Amber Kostuchenko and Katya MacDonald.
Digitally Recorded. Seabird Island, BC, June 28, 2007. Copies at SNA.
Charlie, Elsie. Interview with Sonny McHalsie, Richard Daly, Randel Paul, and Peter
John, Richard Hope’s Camp Spuzzum BC, August 2, 1988, SNA Oral History
Collection.
Duff, Wilson. Unpublished Fieldnotes, Books 1–7. 1950. Royal British Columbia
Museum. Copies at SNA.
Ewen, Fred and Marian Smith. Fieldnotes, Unpublished (summer 1945), 268:2:1 (13),
(Copies available at BC Archives, Victoria, BC), MS-2794.
Gutierrez, Matilda (Tillie). Interview by Amanda Fehr and Amber Kostuchenko.
Digitally Recorded. Chawathil, BC, June 26, 2007. Copies at SNA.
Gutierrez, Matilda. (b) Interview with Sonny McHalsie and Randel Paul, September 7,
1989, SNA Oral History Collection GM 89-7, 30.
Hope, Lawrence. Interview by Sonny McHalsie, Randel Paul, and Richard Daly, Albert
Flat’s Reserve, November 25, 1988, SNA Oral History Collection, 88SR46-49.
Malloway, Ken. Interview by Katya MacDonald and Sarah Nickel. Digitally Recorded.
Sardis, BC, June 22, 2007. Copies at SNA.
McHalsie, Albert (Sonny). Interview by Amanda Fehr. Digitally Recorded. Hope, BC,
June 24, 2007. Copies at SNA.
Pete, Rita. Interview by Amanda Fehr and Katya MacDonald. Digitally Recorded. Skam,
BC, June 29, 2007. Copies at SNA.
Point, Steven L. Interview by Andree Boisselle and Amanda Fehr. Digitally Recorded.
Chilliwack, BC, June 29, 2007. Copies at SNA.
Smith, Marian. Fieldnotes. Unpublished, Summer 1945. Royal Anthropological Institute,
London, Great Britain. Copies at BCA. MS-2794.
Stó:lō Nation Archives Oral History Collection. SNA.
Wells, Oliver. Interview Collection (1961–1968). SNA.
Archival and Manuscript Collections
Indian Affairs Records, RG10, LAC, Ottawa Canada.
Court Proceedings
Chief Robert Hope vs. Lower Fraser Fishing Authority and others. BC Supreme Court
Vancouver Registry. File # c92-4333. Signed July 8, 1992.
Regina vs. Dorothy Vanderpeet. Proceedings at Trial. Canada in the Provincial Court of
BC. File # 43322T. Copies at SNA.
Yale First Nation vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al. BC Supreme Court
Victoria Registry, File # 746.
Yale Indian Band vs. Aitchelitz Indian Band et al. Federal Court, Vancouver BC. File #
T-776-98.
33
Newspapers
Chilliwack Progress, 1998, 1999, 2008.
The Hope Standard, 2000.
The Globe and Mail, 1998, 2008.
Published Sources
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, eds. Post Colonial Studies: The Key
Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Basso, Keith, H. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western
Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996.
Bierwert, Crisca. Rushed by Cedar, Living by the River: Coast Salish Figures of Power.
Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1999.
Carlson, Keith Thor. “History Wars: Considering Contemporary Fishing Site Disputes.”
In A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith Carlson, David Schaepe,
Albert McHalsie, David Smith, Leeanna Rhodes, and Colin Duffield, 58–59.
Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2002.
———. “Innovation, Tradition, Colonialism and Aboriginal Fishing Conflicts in the
Lower Fraser Canyon.” In New Histories for Old: Changing Perspectives on
Canada’s Native Pasts, edited by Ted Binnema and Susan Neylan, 145–57.
Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.
———. “Introduction.” In A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith
Carlson, David Schaepe, Albert McHalsie, David Smith, Leeanna Rhodes, and Colin
Duffield, 1–2. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2002.
———. “Stó:lō Migrations and Shifting Identities.” In A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical
Atlas, edited by Keith Carlson, David Schaepe, Albert McHalsie, David Smith,
Leeanna Rhodes, and Colin Duffield, 30–31. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre,
2002.
———. “Toward an Indigenous Historiography: Events, Migrations, and the Formation
of ‘Post-Contact’ Coast Salish Collective Identities.” In Be of Good Mind: Essays on
the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, 138–81. Vancouver: UBC Press,
2007.
Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of History Revised Edition with Lectures 1926–1928. Edited
by Jan Van Der Dussen. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Cruikshank, Julie. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and
Social Imagination. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.
Duff, Wilson. The Upper Stalo Indians of Fraser Valley British Columbia. Anthropology
in British Columbia Memoir No. 1. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum,
1952.
Green, Lesley Fordred, and David R. Green. “From Chronological to Spatio-Temporal
Histories: Mapping Heritage in Arukwa, Area Indigena Do Uaca Brazil.” History
and Anthropology 14, no. 3 (2003): 283–95.
Harmon, Alexandra. “Coast Salish History,” in Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast
Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, 30–54. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.
Harris, Cole. Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance and Reserves in British
Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002.
Laforet, Andrea, and Annie York. Spuzzum: Fraser Canyon Histories, 1808–1939.
McHalsie, Albert (Sonny). “Halq’emélem Place Names in Stó:lō Territory.” In A Stó:lōCoast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith Carlson, David Schaepe, Albert
34
McHalsie, David Smith, Leeanna Rhodes, and Colin Duffield, 134–53. Vancouver:
Douglas and McIntyre, 2002.
———. “We Have to Take Care of Everything That Belongs to Us.” In Be of Good
Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, 82–130.
Meyers, Fred R. “Ways of Placemaking.” In Cultural Landscapes and the Environment,
edited by Kate Flint and Howard Morphy, 72–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Miller, Bruce. The Problem of Justice: Tradition and Law in the Coast Salish World.
Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Sahlins, Marshall. “The Return of the Event, Again; With Reflections on the Beginnings
of the Great Fijian War of 1843 to 1855 between the Kingdoms of Bau and Rewa.”
In Clio in Oceania: Towards a Historical Anthropology, edited by Aletta Biersack,
37–99. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990.
———. With Apologies to Thucydides: Understanding History as Culture and Vice
Versa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Santos-Granero, Fernando. “Writing History into the Landscape: Space, Myth, and Ritual
in Contemporary Amazonia,” American Ethnologist 25, no. 2 (1998): 128–48.
Schaepe, David M. “Rock Wall Fortifications: Reconstructing a Fraser Canyon Defensive
Network.” In A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith Carlson, David
Schaepe, Albert McHalsie, David Smith, Leeanna Rhodes, and Colin Duffield, 52–
53. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2002.
———. “Stó:lō Identity and the Cultural Landscape of S’olh Téméxw.” In Be of Good
Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, 234-59.
Seixas, Peter. “Introduction.” In Theorizing Historical Consciousness, edited by Peter
Seixas, 3–24. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.
Sider, Gerald, and Gavin Smith. “Introduction.” In Between History and Histories: The
Making of Silences and Commemorations, edited by Gerald Sider and Gavin Smith,
3–30. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.
Suttles, Wayne. “The Persistence of Intervillage Ties.” In Coast Salish Essays, edited by
Wayne Suttles, 209–30. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1987.
Tennant, Paul. Aboriginal People and Politics: The Indian Land Question in British
Columbia 1849–1989. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1990.
Turkel, William. The Archive of Place: Unearthing the Pasts of the Chilcotin Plateau.
Unpublished Theses and Dissertations
Carlson, Keith Thor. “The Power of Place, The Problem of Time: A Study of History
and Aboriginal Identity.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia, 2003.
Laforet, Andrea. “Folk History in a Small Canadian Community.” PhD diss., University
of British Columbia, 1974.
Websites
BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Yale First Nation Agreement-inPrinciple Brochure. http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/yale/down/yale_aip_
brochure_01.pdf
35
Bjerky, Irene. “First Peoples of Yale and Spuzzum.” Colourful Characters in Historic
Yale. http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/ pm.php?id=story_line&fl=0&lg=English &ex
=00000150 &sl =5044&pos=15.
The Chilliwack Progress. March 17, 2006. As quoted in Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory
Committee Local Media Excerpts to March 31st, 2006. http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/NR/
rdonlyres/37719ADD-6E99-4634-D00B53E396C7D86/928/
LocalMediaReporttoMarch3106.pdf
Yale First Nation Treaty Negotiations Agreement in Principle. Vancouver, March 9,
2006. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/bc/treapro/ston/aip/yalaip/yalfin_e.pdf
Amanda Fehr is a first year PhD student at the University of Saskatchewan working with
a SSHRC administered Joseph Armand Bombardier Graduate Scholarship examining
Aboriginal understandings of Catholicism. Her SSHRC funded Master’s thesis was a
micro-history comparing current Stó:lō understandings of the I:yem memorial with those
of its creators in 1938. It explores processes of continuity and change in Aboriginal
relationships with the Fraser Canyon. This work grew out of research conducted during
the joint University of Saskatchewan-University of Victoria Ethnohistory Field School in
July of 2007. She is supervised by Dr. Keith Carlson.

2 Fehr Relationship - UCFV Research Review

Transcription

Similar documents

348 WALLACE ST, HOPE / 604-869-2165 Toll Free: 1-800

1540 While searching for the fabled “golden” cities, Garcia Lopez de

Yale`s dark nights sales opportunities

Brochure - Canyon Cruise

(888) 868-WEST

Brochure

Utah Canyoneering

Alpine Meadows Resort, Hallamore Lake

Resumé PDF - Greg Rava

2011-2012 Annual Report (PDF 4.3MB)